"Settled" Climate Science Just Got Unsettled

Well, actually it was never settled, but you get the idea. After years of trying to persuade us that we had to stop emitting carbon, like, yesterday or we would all be doomed to heat death -- okay, that's hyperbole. What they really wanted was the U.S. to sharply curb CO₂ emissions (and damn the economic effects) and introduce global food rationing. So, I guess it wasn't that hyperbolic after all.

Anyway, after all the handwringing, it turns out that the warming trend we've heard so much about ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

There's a plaintive cry from some bitter clingers -- where on earth did I get that phrase from? -- that any reduced solar output will more than be compensated for by man-made global warming.

The problem with that argument is that we've been hearing for years that the earth is warming. It turns out that wasn't true. We've been hearing for years that the "science is settled". It turns out that it was only settled to the extent that "scientists" with a political agenda attempted to blacklist any scientists who disagreed with the International Panel on Climate Control and manipulate data that didn't fit those politics.

And of course, it must be asked: if human actions were artificially warming the planet then it must be true that the only reason global temperatures have remained steady since 1997 (rather than dropping) would be due to those actions. So, drastically reducing carbon emissions would precipitate global cooling. Following that train of thought leads to some unexpected and unwanted destinations for certain political factions, I daresay.

Oh also, it isn't global warming; that phrase is so passè. It's global climate change. So, all the handwringing over whether the planet is warming or not isn't important. What is important is that humans are destroying the planet! (Seriously, I see that a lot.)

My reply to that is to ask a couple of questions:

1. At what point in history has the climate of the earth been unchanging? (If you answer anything other than "never", you're wrong.)

2. If humans went back to a period of history before the industrial revolution -- heck, if every human and machine disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow -- do you believe that earth's climate would settle into some ideal state and remain static for eternity? (Because if not, then I'll need more than the word of some obviously compromised "scientists" to work for either the permanent regression of mankind or its complete destruction. Also, you might want to think about question 1 before you answer.)

Now, with the revelation that the trumpted warming trend stopped fifteen years ago, I have another question:

If it turns out that we are headed for another "little ice age", would you support increased CO₂ emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate?

Do You Know Who's Tracking Your Web Usage?

My friend Cheryl posted a link on Facebook to an article that describes the way in which Google Analytics tracks the websites you visit and even which searches you perform on those sites (a) while knowing your identity and (b) without your having used any Google product to get to those sites.

Here's what's going on behind the scenes:

First, we see a transaction to Google Analytics to retrieve some JavaScript. Part of this JavaScript's purpose is to enable tracking even when users have cookies disabled.

Once this JavaScript is retrieved and executed by the browser, the Google JavaScript prepares a second request to Google for a special image file. In the request for that image file Google embeds tracking information which will be used during the rest of the session on the IRS website...

Now, I enter some search terms into the IRS website search box. For the sake of emphasizing the point, I enter the terms "Offer in Compromise", and hit return. While the search itself is presumably handled privately by the IRS site, surprisingly, the search terms are also sent to Google. This happens when the search results page makes another request for Google's hidden tracking image we previously observed. Web requests typically contain not just the URL of the request, but also the URL for the page from which the request is being made...

Finally, I now click on one of the search results to view a specific document. The Google tracking image is again requested, and in that request, the URL for document I chose to click on is sent to Google. In this way, Google is informed of which documents I view on the [website]. This happens whether or not I arrived at the document by searching or navigating on the [site]...

We've now seen not only that Google is tracking your use of the [website], but also may be receiving information that specifically identifies you. I believe it is, in fact, likely that they are receiving specifically identifying information from many users of the site because many users are logged in to some Google web property while browsing. This includes anyone who's logged in to Gmail before browsing the [site].

This procedure can happen on any site that leverages Google intellectual property. How many sites' internal searches are "powered by Google" alone? Now add in sites that embed YouTube videos, pictures via Picasa... you're starting to get the picture.

The purpose of this post is not to bash Google, though there is plenty here to bash. Instead, I want to take the opportunity to point out that my employer has tools in its latest browser that prevents this sort of thing from happening. How? Internet Explorer (IE) 9 leverages something called Tracking Protection Lists. These lists are maintained by third parties (indeed, anyone can create their own as they like; it still works with the browser) and block ads, pop-ups, and, most importantly, block requests to your browser for just the sort of information that tracking cookies (and the Google Analytics shenanigans above) attempt to get from your browsing session.

How does it work? Well, this article explains it in detail.

More importantly, how do you set this up in your browser? That's easy.

As "Real Journalism" Dies, Have Real Journalists Stopped Caring?

I have a pet theory I'm kicking around. It goes like this: as traditional news media declines and the war between "real journalists" and serious news bloggers (note: I am not one of these) who, while not offically working for a news outlet, nevertheless function as journalists begins to tilt to the side wearing the pajamas, traditional news suffer a loss of prestige.

That slide results in a drop in quality on three fronts: first, less people are eager to be identified with traditional journalism. After all, who volunteers to associate with a dying endeavor?

Second, those who do decide to go the traditional media route are less skilled and/or professional.

Third, those already established in the media either try to get out, or at the least stop caring about it.

I have no idea which of those categories applies to David Adams of Reuters, since, as I am not a journalist, I don't have to go research Mr. Adams' background to figure out when he graduated college. However, it's pretty clear that whichever bucket he falls into, he is a data point in favor of my theory.

Oh No, That Evil Republican Is Paying Exactly As Much In Taxes As He Is Legally Obligated To!

In the latest installment of The Media Is Trying To Make Me Like Someone Despite My Best Efforts (see previously: Sarah Palin), the gnashing and fainting surrounding the "revelation" that Mitt Romney's tax burden hovers near the 15% range is making me defend the guy behind the inspiration for some of the worst legislation of my lifetime.

Note that no one is claiming that Romney is a tax cheat (which, apparently is not a big deal these days). No, the complaints revolve around the nebulous rallying cry from 2011 that refused to die: he's not paying his fair share! A quick aside: who gets to determine what is fair? Will you be comfortable with that answer when the person or entity wielding the power doesn't share your political views?

Romney pays around 15% in income tax because most of his income is derived from sources that are taxed in the tax code at 15%. So what is the problem with that? Is it that capital gains should be taxed at a high rate? If you immediately answered yes, I bet you don't own any stock. That's too bad; when the economy is tanking it's generally a good time to invest, assuming you can stay in for the long haul. But enthusiastically wanting to raise taxes as long as they don't affect you personally is just so selfish. I can't believe a good liberal would ever be for it. And no self-respecting conservative would push for higher capital gains taxes, so...

Is the problem that Romney has too much money? To which I respond, how much money you make is irrelevant. The only way the amount of a person's wealth could be relevant is if wealth is a zero-sum game. Which frankly, I think a lot of people on the left seem to think. I have bad news for your worldview: this guy having more money doesn't mean that guy has to have less. This should be obvious, but for many it is not. Look at it this way: if wealth was a zero-sum game it would be a true statement that the world is exactly as wealthy now as it was 1000 years ago. Do you think that is a true statement? No, you don’t. So why would anyone make the argument that someone else has too much money? (Note: I could have just as easily used 100 years ago above, but I wanted to invoke that image of civilization at a point where the hot new invention was a bar of soap.)

Okay then, is the problem that Romney is "gaming the system", deliberately structuring his income so that his tax burden is as small as possible? Raise your hand if you don't do the same thing. That's what I thought. I have yet to meet anyone go out of their way to structure their finances with the goal of paying more taxes. That includes Warren Buffett.

Another aside: you should read the whole article at that link. One, because it hilariously talks about Buffet being ready to "take the Republicans tax challenge" by matching any checks Republicans write to the treasury while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the challenge was for Buffet to write his own check. The article tries to twist things around and make it seem like Republicans -- who don't want taxes raised -- should voluntarily write a check in order to not seem like hypocrites while Buffett -- who wants taxes raised -- is a hero for not writing one. The other reason you should read the article is that it's Time, and your last chance to read it could come any day now. (Sorry Canada, you had your chance.)

Back to the whole tax avoidance thing: do people have a duty to pay as much in taxes as they can, or does this moral burden only fall on certain people? People who, say, make "too much money"? If you believe that, then you should be all over people like Warren Buffet, who as we already know, is outraged -- outraged! -- about how little he pays in taxes. Not outraged enough to write that check to the treasury, but you know, outraged!

So, just to be clear: Romney hasn't done anything illegal. He hasn't done anything morally wrong. So just what is the problem here? Besides, you know, Romney having an 'R' after his name.

You Realize, Of Course, That Today's Environmental Movement Would Kill The Computer Revolution

Glenn Reynolds had a link this morning to a deal on a 32GB flash card and reader. Along with the link he did some reminiscing about days gone by. He later updated the post with a reader comment:

"Heck, I remember when punch cards were hi tech. It would take a stack of cards 47 miles high to store 32GB. That’s a lot of trees.”

That is a lot of trees. Which made me realize something:

If computers didn't exist in 2012, would they ever? If an inventor (a latent Charles Babbage, say) came along now and proposed a machine that could do calculations at a heretofore unheard of speed and all that was needed was lots and lots of wood to make punch cards, would environmentalists sit still for it? Would a president as firmly in the pocket of those same environmentalists support it?

Not Long Ago I Had To Kill Zombies On a 32", Non-HD Television

A couple of years ago I began floating the idea to my lovely wife of ditching the dish and getting in with the hip crowd, who use these fancy new gadgets called computers for their entertainment needs. I wanted to get rid of the dish, get cable internet service (which is the best I've been able to find in the area), and rely on Netflix, Hulu and network websites that allow you to watch their shows online.

Donna was hesitant at first, not because she didn't believe computers existed, but because she worried that she wouldn't be able to see all her shows. Pish posh, I explained.

One thing we could agree on however, was that our internet sucked. Our provider, Eye Thirty Minus One* was slow and unreliable. So we made the decision to get rid of our dish and sign up with Cable One, the only cable provider Fargo will ever need, which is a good thing because they are a monopoly. Their televison sucks, with a DVR user interface that hasn't been upgraded since, I don't know, 1954?

It can't do basic things like group multiple episodes of the same show together in a folder, or remember which user's guide was last accessed (meaning you have to repeatedly push the Guide button to get back to your menu every time you access it). There's no preloaded guide that is smart enough to know which channels you subscribe to. It's all very 51/4" floppy. That said, I'd rather have great internet and so-so TV than the other way around.

Especially when, as Christmas 2011 approached, we made the decision to join the 21st century and get a flat screen TV for the living room. A nice 46" Samsung LED SmartTV looks really great. You haven't fought to survive
the zombie apocalypse until you've done it on a giant HDTV.

I then I did some research and found a compact little PC that was all wired and ready to be an entertainment hub. Waiting until after Christmas was a smart idea, as I got it for less than $400 and it included free 2-day shipping.

So we now have a state-of-the-art television with a PC attached for watching movies and TV shows we can't get on cable, an XBox 360 for killing zombies in HD, and a Wii for, well, we have a Wii. We may never have to leave the house again.


*Names have been transparently changed to protect the crappy.

Dinner and Drinks: Crockpot Chili

When the weather starts to cool off in the fall, our thoughts usually turn to outdoor projects we try to avoid in the heat of summer. Recently we realized we couldn't put off raking leaves any longer and so, on a cool (~55°F) Saturday we filled bags (and bags and bags) full of leaves. And for good measure, I cleaned the gutters.

Thankfully I had the foresight to chill some beer in the fridge and start some chili in the crockpot before we went outside. There's nothing better than coming inside after a long day of working in the yard to a house that smells like a chili truck exploded. Except maybe knowing the fridge is full of cold beer.

Crockpot Chili

1 lb ground beef
1 large can of red or black beans
6 oz of tomato paste (one of those little cans)
32 oz can of tomato sauce
14 oz can of diced tomatoes
1/2 a large onion (diced)
2 cloves of garlic (minced)
4 tbsp chili powder
2 tsp salt (divided)
1 tsp allspice
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/2 tsp white pepper

If you can get good fresh tomatoes, by all means use them. Donna's parents can them so we get fresh stuff year round. But a crockpot can cover a lot of sins, and canned tomato sauce is one of them.

The trick to good crockpot chili is to hold off on adding the hamburger until you plan to eat. If you've ever put hamburger in a crockpot and let it slow cook, you've undoubtedly noticed that it tastes... wrong. The texture gets all mushy and that's no good.

So, set the hamburger, allspice, black and white pepper, and half the salt aside. Everything else goes into the crockpot on high for one hour. (Remember to drain the excess liquid from the beans. No one wants bean juice in the chili.) Then turn it to low and forget about it. Well, you can stir it once in awhile if you want. Maybe gaze at it longingly while you drink beer. Not that I would do that.

Let it slow cook for at least 6 hours. The longer it cooks the better. When you can't stand to wait any longer, brown the ground beef in a skillet over medium heat. Season with all those spices you held in reserve. Add the ground beef to the crockpot and stir. Then crack a beer and enjoy.

Speaking of beer, on the crisp autumn evening I enjoyed a (okay several) Sam Adams Black Lager. I'm not a huge Sam Adams fan to be honest, but the black lager has a nice balance of maltiness and lightness. It's a beer you can chug a little after a day of toiling in the yard but still has a little bit of heft to it.